Renji Prasad vs Uco Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 21902 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/12TH KARTHIKA, 1943

                    RP NO. 364 OF 2021

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7634/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF

                     KERALA, ERNAKULAM

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

         RENJI PRASAD
         S/O. P.P. RAJENDRA PRASAD,
         VACHIPURACKAL KARTHIKA,
         AYAMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686015.
         BY ADV E.A.BIJUMON


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

         UCO BANK,
         REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
         ZONAL OFFICE, 39/3720 F,
         S.R. COMPLEX, REVIPURAM,
         VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM-682036.
         BY ADV.H.RAMANAN, SC

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P. No.364/21                      -:2:-




                     BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                       ------------------------------------
                           R.P. No.364 of 2021
                                        IN
                        W.P.(C) No.7634 of 2021
                      --------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2021

                                  ORDER

Learned counsel for the review petitioner seeks for a review of

the judgment dated 24.3.2021 in W.P.(C) No.7634 of 2021, alleging

that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in so far as

this Court included a condition while directing consideration of one

time settlement proposal to be made by the review petitioner. The

condition imposed was that once the bank takes a decision on the

settlement proposal submitted by the review petitioner, the said

decision shall be binding and will not be questioned by the review

petitioner in any court or forum.

2. On a consideration of the submissions made across the Bar

by the learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as the learned

counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that there is no error

apparent on the face of the record entitling this Court to review the

judgment. On a perusal of the judgment, it is noticed that the very

direction to consider the settlement proposal by the bank was itself

issued on the basis of the condition that review petitioner shall not

question the decision taken by the bank. The said condition was

intrinsic to the directions issued and it cannot be regarded as an error

apparent on the face of the record.

Hence this review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S' APPENDIX

ANN.A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OTS PROPOSAL DATED 25.03.2021 ANN.A2 TRUE COPY OF THE OTS REJECTION LETTER DATED 25.03.2021